The Most Substantive Criticisms of the Kalam Cosmological Argument!

Dr. Craig addresses the most substantive critiques of the second premise of the kalam cosmological argument.

We welcome your comments in the Reasonable Faith forums:

[Mark-cdwf]

Dr. Craig is wrong about the impossibility of reaching an actual infinite by successive addition.

Chuck Norris has counted to infinity.

Twice.

[waodipo]

The premise, "Everything that begins to exist has a cause".

This premise is based on our intuitive classical relationship with objects within the universe, then makes the assumption that the totality of the universe behaves in a similar fashion. It needs to be updated to "Everything WITHIN the universe that begins to exist has a cause".

The fallacy in the premise "everything that begins to exist has a cause" can easily be demonstrated by considering the maximum speed possible within the universe, the speed of light. If stated "Nothing can travel faster than light", then someone may respond by saying "but there are galaxies moving away from us at speeds faster than the speed of light". To avoid such a response, the best way to state the premise is by saying "Nothing can travel faster than light through space".

With that consideration, it is easy to see the logic of the claim, "The universe can begin to exist without a cause", and that's because the universe doesn't have to obey the laws governing the objects that exist within it.

[forall]

If the Universe began to exist and was created by a God, then God changed from a state of not wanting to have the Universe to a state of wanting the Universe, what explains this change if God isn't externally influenced prior to the existence of anything else ?

To simply put, why did God start using his freewill to create the Universe in the finite past ?

Why did God start WANTING to have a Universe in the finite past ?

P1. Everything that begins to exist must have a cause.
P2. God's thought about creating a Universe, began to exist.
C ; God's thoughts about creating a Universe must have a cause.

God cannot be the cause of his own thoughts because God's thoughts isn't distinct from God. God's thoughts cannot be an effect of anything outside of God because, nothing exists outside of God. From this it follows, God doesn't have a thought about creating a Universe.

A God without a thought about creating the Universe, cannot create the Universe unless through reflex action. God can't perform a reflex action because God isn't a material being and can't be externally influenced by anything.

Conclusion: The Universe wasn't created by a God.

[lme]

So you believe your god came from nothing and then created the universe from nothing? Can you explain what a “nothing” even is? How did you rule out magic fairies, genies, or reality warping aliens as the potential cause of the universe?

[Kthlife]

Watch this video for a good breakdown of the fallacies in this video:

[TomSnyder-yu]

Dr. Craig, atheists say that Guth has refuted Valenkin's claim.

[curiositywasframed]

I think it's fair to say that our current substantiation of the universe began to exist, though our models don't actually work before a certain fraction of a second. There are all sorts of thoughts about what else there might be.

Regarding his concerns of infinity... if our universe is all that there is then fair. But being a common sense guy is not a great defense of not liking infinity.

Even with all premises intact, I really never understood why the conclusion after stage 2 is 'God'. A rock falling into a lake causes huge ripples - it is the cause of something entirely different from itself. Why does the cause have to be greater than the universe, or like the universe in any way? The cause needs to be sufficient is all...

Anyway, I'm not a philosopher but I never got it

[noneofyourbusiness]

The first premise has not been established, especially with quantum mechanics.
The second premise contradicts physicists‘ view of physics.
The conclusion makes no mention of gods.
One of the top arguments for god, presented by one of the biggest theist philosophers…

[richunixunix]

Lets see Dr Craig, has a PhD in Theology and one in Philosophy....hummmm no quantum physic PhD or a Doctorate in Cosmology. Sorry Dr. Craig, using your own words..."stay-in-your-lane" unless you have the same level of education. Guess what YOU DON'T.

[maksimbolonkin]

By this point WLC not just being confused about scientific evidence for the beginning of the Universe, he outright shamelessly lies. After being corrected by Dr. Carroll in real time he still keeps insisting his lay person understanding of physics and math is better than the author's he's citing.

[frosted]

1. Things can and do "exist" without a cause. Your special pleading makes it clear that you beLIEve this. Yet you argue against it? Something fishy here.
2. We measure the current epoc of the universe when discussing a beginning. This is just a strawman you proclaim is consistant.
3. Not sure why you state an unrelated conclusion based in a series of failed premises as a premise. This is not how conclusions work. You also pretend you have a way to know something that you infer ONLY framed in religious contexts. You don't seem to know how knowledge works either.
Let's offer a better quality choice here that you MUST accept as we have better qualitative evidence for it with more verbosity, or you can keep being hypocritical.
1. Spacetime began to exist.
2. That which is not in spacetime is imaginary.
3. Time traveling wizards have set the universe in motion as it is today.

[mattsmith]

There's nothing more absurd about a timeline that is eternal than an eternal god. In fact, the eternal timeline has a distinct advantage: we all agree that a timeline exists now in some sense.

The problem with theistic, motivated confusion about the eternal past is that the critiques attack an endless sequence. It's true, we can't have counted up to a number such that it can't be counted up to. However, the 'end' is the present moment, we're talking rather about a _beginningless_ sequence, not an endless one.

[airatoryt]

I think it's self-refuting, because
if the cause is eternal, then the effect must also be eternal, and if the effect began to exist, then the cause must have also begun to exist.
Then if God's act of creation 'began to exist', then God's act of creation also requires a cause that is not eternal, but also began to exist. And that too would require a cause which itself was not eternal and had begun to exist... ad infinitum.

[eltonron]

There is no eternity of matter. All matter has age, thus, a beginning.

[roderickshaka]

🚨counter argument: ☝️anything that is sentient, has need, is rational, can reason, can differentiate between having and not having needs a cause.

[AndyReichert]

it is always fascinating to see alleged atheists put so much faith in not-yet-science of the gaps [without any evidence for it].

[bbagain.]

There is nothing common-sense about anything that you say, and you say "I think" a lot because you actually don't know anything.

[devb]

The Kalam done honestly:
1) Everything that exists MIGHT have a cause
2) The universe MIGHT have begun to exist
3) The universe MIGHT have a cause

Now let's throw a bunch of BS on about aspects of this possible cause, like a personality and desires.
Wow... that's so compelling.

[WhiteScorpio]

"I don't know, infinity is weird, so it's not possible. By the way, God has a magic ability to cause things outside of time." The greatest Christian apologist, ladies and gentlemen.

[TheChampFighter]

Dr. Craig and Dr. Carrier need to debate again. 💯